okeedoke!

These are the same people who decided which books are scripture.  How can you trust them to have got that right, and everything else wrong?

First, don't put words in my mouth. I did not say they got "everything else wrong." They didn't get EVERYTHING wrong, but there's many things they DID get wrong.

Second: They didn't "decide which books are Scripture." The believers before them already had apostolic Scripture circulating among them (copies of Paul's letters, for example). The earliest post-apostolic writers attest to that fact.

And even the earliest post-apostolic 'fathers' DID differ drastically with the Bible on certain points of doctrine.

So again, you do whatever you want. But I go to early Christian writers for pretty much nothing.

I have no interest in discussing this issue further, thanks.

o.  

"6. The parable should not be pressed further than the context and symbols of the parable warrant; such is the case with any illustration. This one is no exception."
 
I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with this - certainly one could take the illustration too far, but on the other hand part of the difference between a parable and a metaphor or illustration is surely that the parables each contains many different messages and truths in one simple story.  We also need to be very careful not to miss symbolisms that would have been obvious to the original listeners, but with out degree of historical knowledge are easily missed in our modern culture.

It is possible this parable is rich in symbolic meaning that I've not seen. I freely admit that possibility, nor did I exclude it in my previous post.

The problem is: sometimes it's very hard if not impossible for people *today* to know exactly what would have been understood as a symbol 2,000 years ago in an entirely different culture. Hence the tons of subjective and contradictory interpretations of parables (as well as the rest of Scripture) floating around today, as can be seen on this thread alone.

In any case, you are correct that no one here is an authority on what Jews 2,000 years ago would have understood to be symbolism, or what they would have understood those symbols to mean. So I believe I am correct in saying a parable - which is simply an illustration picturing literal truths in representative terms - should not be pushed further than was meant according to the context. It's better to err on the side of caution, taking the simplest, contextual meaning as the correct one, than to run the risk of reading into an illustration more than Christ intended in the pursuit of some clever, novel interpretation.

"Sometimes the simplest answers are the best."
 
To think you've exhausted all the meanings in a parable, simple because you've found one (however good) is huge mistake.

I neither said nor implied I had exhausted all the potential meanings of that or any parable. Please do not put words in my mouth.

"As for early church writers, I personally put almost zero stock in anything they say. But that's me."
 
Why would you not respect the writings of the people who chose and collated the books of the bible?

I look to them for practically nothing because the early church (the "fathers" included) fell into a deep doctrinal apostasy within 100 years of Paul's death. They contradicted Scripture on some major points, so I stick to the Bible alone. If the Lord wanted me to cite these early writers as authorities He would have seen to it they were included in Scipture. They weren't. You are free to view them however you like, but don't bother trying to change my mind on this. in case you're so inclined. You won't.

Grace to you,

o.

Hello Michael,

I still wonder what you make of all the other symbols in the parable are they just superfulous window dressing or do they have significance and if so what is it?

Not sure they have any significance. The lesson of all three parables, imho, is how fervently God, in Christ, was seeking after those who were lost even when the Pharisees - who should have been shepherds - had written them off as unapproachable. Sometimes the simplest answers are the best.

As for early church writers, I personally put almost zero stock in anything they say. But that's me.

Continued grace to you,

o.

 

This was written about 3 years ago, around the peak of Jabez fever.

* * *

A friend at work was eager for me to read the little book, The Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson. Knowing this book is immensely popular, I accepted it.

The main idea of this book--that Christians should seek God more fervently in prayer--is true and commendable. But there are four things in this book that Christians should realize before doing whatever Wilkinson says:

1. OUT OF CONTEXT

The actual prayer of Jabez is the prayer of an Old Testament Jew who was praying for God's blessing on his life. The specific desire of Jabez was for God to protect him and give him more land (to literally "increase my boundaries") which God did. The prayer meant nothing more than that.

So in order to apply this prayer to Christians today, Wilkinson has do something that no Christian should do: he spiritualizes the prayer, which means he creates a "spiritual" application for us today by making the passage mean something it never actually meant (in this case, that God will increase our "spiritual territory," not the size of our backyard). THAT IS NOT WHAT IT ORIGINALLY MEANT, but Wilkinson has to do this in order to make the prayer seem to apply to anyone today.

Few Christians like to consider this fact, but it is the TRUTH: We cannot go through the Bible picking and choosing which promises we want to apply to ourselves! The reason is because, while all of the Bible is FOR us, not all of the Bible is written TO us, nor is all of it ABOUT us. Jabez was a Jew who lived under the dispensation of the Law. We are Gentiles (non-Jews)living under the dispensation of Grace. The ONLY promises we can claim are found in the New Testament, mainly the writings of the apostle Paul, "the apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13).


2. WHERE IS CHRIST IN ALL THIS?

Wilkinson describes three encounters with people in need (the man on the island, the woman on the plane, and the woman afraid of Antichrist). He says these people opened up to him about their problems.

With the man he "spent the next hour talking through several key biblical principles for a happy marriage."

With the woman on the plane, he "laid out some biblical principles and promises for her. I prayed with her...she had broken through to forgiveness [of her husband?]" and was now "at peace."

The woman who lived in fear of Antichrist received from him "a beautiful spiritual deliverance," whatever that means.

What's missing in all of this?

There is NO MENTION whether ANY of these people were believers, or whether they had ever heard the Gospel.

I am not saying these individuals were not saved. But unless I overlooked it, Wilkinson never mentioned their spiritual state, whatever it is. If they were not saved, did he share the Gospel of God's grace with these unbelievers? Surely he would have mentioned it if he had done so--but Wilkinson never says either way! Why? For all we know, all of these people were LOST and have since died and went to Hell because Wilkinson did not give them the ONE THING they needed most: the Gospel of God's grace (2 Cor 5:14-21).

Prayer of Jabez is a HUGE seller...it has been written up in USA TODAY, the NEW YORK TIMES, and the WALL STREET JOURNAL. It is said that even non-Christians are reading and applying the book to their lives. But as far as I could tell, THE GOSPEL--THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE PEOPLE--IS NOT MENTIONED EVEN ONCE IN THE ENTIRE BOOK. Why?

3. GOD *WILL* ANSWER THE PRAYER OF JABEZ?

It's one thing to believe God will answer prayer based on a promise that He made specifically to us. . .or to hope God will give us what He knows is best, even if it is not what we ask for...and even if the answer is "no."

But Wilkinson says that if this prayer is prayed for 30 days (or longer), God WILL answer it. Doesn't this seem to cross the line from relying on God to answer prayer according to His will and knowledge of what's best, and enters the area where we rely on our prayer to influence God to do OUR will (in this case, "bless us and increase our spiritual territory")?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to increase our "spiritual territory," so long as our #1 goal is to further the gospel of the grace of God. And there are passages in the Bible which say God will not break His promises. But there is no verse in the Bible that says God HAS to do ANYTHING today in response to our "faith," or how long we ask for something "in faith." The way Wilkinson prays Jabez' prayer is a not-too-subtle attempt to exert power OVER God--to get God to do what WE want Him to do. And his explanation is that God set it up that way!

The prayer of Jabez, as it is presented in this book, mutates from being the simple prayer of an Old Testament Jew, and becomes a mystical incantation--a magical formula-- that Almighty God MUST respond to IF one prays it long enough. This is not biblical Christianity! It is very similar (I do not say "identical") to the kind of blasphemy that says "faith" is a law and a power contained in words. Such people see God as the genie in the bottle: If we "rub the bottle" {speak or confess what we want} with enough force {if we have enough "faith" behind our words}, then the genie {God} MUST give us whatever we want because even He must obey "the law of faith." That is WITCHCRAFT and SORCERY, NOT biblical faith in the biblical God...and using the prayer of Jabez the way Wilkinson teaches is VERY CLOSE to it.

Anyone who believes that today God WILL answer the prayer of Jabez (or any other prayer) simply because we have enough faith behind it, or because we pray it long enough, is engaging in a form of MAGIC...not to mention the "vain repetition" prayers condemned by Jesus. Such people should REPENT of using the prayer of Jabez--or any prayer--with the belief that God WILL answer it because He HAS to answer it. . . such a 'god' is NOT the almighty, sovereign God of the Bible.

The apostle Paul--one of the most righteous, sanctified Christians ever--prayed THREE TIMES for God to remove a "thorn" in his flesh that had plagued him. But God refused, telling Paul "my grace is sufficient for thee."

Now remember, Paul was an ex-Pharisee. As a Pharisee, Paul knew the Old Testament by heart. Did Paul not know the prayer of Jabez? Sure he did! So why did Paul not pray this prayer when condemned to death in a Roman jail, so that God "would keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me?" (that IS part of Jabez' prayer, too!) Paul evidently did not pray the prayer of Jabez, since he ended up getting his head cut off in Rome. Could the apostle Paul have used the counsel of Bruce Wilkinson?

Do not let anyone deceive you into thinking a teacher or a teaching is of God simply because it gets results. There are Muslims who swear that their financial prosperity is a direct result of praying to Allah five times a day. There are pagans who believe it rained or didn't rain (according to their wishes) because they made the right sacrifice to their idols. There are Mormons (who worship a false Christ) who claim God's blessing on their lives as a result of being Mormon. Some New Agers claim to have been healed of all manner of disease because they wear crystal necklaces. Satan is the "god of this world," and there are many things he can do that resemble miracles--including healing the sick and giving prosperity--which he wants people to believe are from God when they are not! So results, by themselves, prove nothing, because the devil can "make things happen." GOD'S WORD ALONE is our only way to know right from wrong. We are to walk by FAITH, not by SIGHT (results). Praying the prayer of Jabez-- or any prayer--with the mindset encouraged by Wilkinson is not walking by faith.

4. If you are a believer, praying the prayer of Jabez is not only not necessary, but shows a lack of knowledge regarding WHO YOU ARE IN CHRIST.

Are you shocked to hear me say that? Well, let me show you what the Bible says. If you are truly saved, you have more NOW BY FAITH then Jabez could have DREAMED of!!! The following is a VERY INCOMPLETE list of what is ours NOW if we are in Christ:


WHAT WAS I WITHOUT CHRIST?

Ungodly Romans - 5:6
A sinner Romans - 5:8
God's enemy - Romans 5:10
Condemned already Romans - 5:18
Under penalty of death - Romans 6:23
Unable to please God - Romans 8:8
Cursed Galatians - 3:10
Dead in sin - Ephesians 2:1

WHAT AM I IN CHRIST?

Crucified with Him - Galatians 2:20
Buried with Him - Colossians 2:12
Risen with Him - Colossians 2:12
Alive with Him - Colossians 2:13
Ascended with Him - Ephesians 2:6
Seated in heaven with Him - Ephesians 2:6
Joint-heir with Him - Romans 8:17
Indwelt by the Father - Ephesians 4:6
Indwelt by the Son - Colossians 1:27
Indwelt by the Holy Spirit - 1 Corinthians 3:16
A saint beloved of God - Romans 1:7
Dead to sin - Romans 6:2-11
Under grace - Romans 6:14
Eternal - Romans 6:23
Forever free of God's condemnation - Romans 8:1, 34
A child of God - Romans 8:14

WHAT IS CHRIST TO ME?

My wisdom - 1 Corinthians 1:30
My righteousness - 1 Corinthians 1:30
My sanctification - 1 Corinthians 1:30
My redemption - 1 Corinthians 1:30
My victory - 1 Corinthians 15:57
My peace - Ephesians 2:14
My hope - Colossians 1:27
My completion - Colossians 2:10
My life - Colossians 3:4


ALL OF THIS describes the person who trusts in Christ's life, death, and resurrection in our place, for our sins.

So why do we need the prayer of Jabez? WE DON'T.

If we are in Christ, we ALREADY have far greater blessings than Jabez could ever have dreamed of!

www.ephesians3-9.com

Some things I try to keep in mind:

1. Parables are parabolic truths - the natural is set parallel to the spiritual, in order to illustrate and explain spiritual truths.

2. Christ said that if one understands the parable of the sower, he will understand all the parables, which would include the parable of the Prodigal Son. Since the parables are all associated, then, the reaping, gathering, buying treasure in the field, the pearl of great price, separating good fish from bad, foolish and wise virgins, etc, are all related to the preaching of the Kingdom Gospel to the nation of Israel, and God's judgment of her for rejecting it.

3. Notice Israel was already in the process of rejecting Messiah when Christ began to use parables. Israel, represented by her leaders, had rejected light already given (see Mark 13:10-11; cf Matt. 21:45), so Christ began to speak in veiled language.

4. This is one of three connected parables, the context of all three having to do with the finding of something that had been lost.

5. These parables were sparked by the Pharisees' complaint that Christ "receives sinners, and eats with them."

6. The parable should not be pressed further than the context and symbols of the parable warrant; such is the case with any illustration. This one is no exception.

Given all that, the parable of the Prodigal Son is likely not a parable of salvation as we know it - to apply the parable to salvation today, one would have to make some changes in the story to fit the facts (particularly regarding the older son). Instead, here is a possible interpretation of the parable which seeks to take all the above into account:

The father = God (that's obvious).

The sons = the nation of Israel as a whole; the children of the covenants, be they degraded sinners (publicans, prostitutes, etc), upright and righteous (Mary and Joseph, or the parents of John the baptizer), or the self-righteous religious ones (the Pharisees).

The older son, specifically, pictures the self-righteous, holier-than-thou Pharisees.

The younger brother represents those "publicans and sinners" to whom Christ ministered, and whom the Pharisees despised even though they were all "brothers" under the covenants.

That's how I sees it, anyway,

o.

Good morning, Crusader!

Yes, Eph 3:9 is my website, and no, I do not believe saving faith is the gift of God.

Talk you you later,

r.

To everyone on this thread:

Hello, my name is Don. I am a monthly reader of the Berean Searchlight magazine, from which A4C has quoted. I do not understand why A4C is not giving direct answers to your questions, but instead keeps posting articles...at least that seems at first glance to be what he/she is doing.

Doctrinally I am pretty much in line with Miller, but I would not post articles by anyone, only to respond with MORE articles when questions are asked.

Just my two cents...looking forward to talking with y'all,

Don/rightdivider